Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1974 > September 1974 Decisions > Teehankee, J., Concurring and Dissenting : Separate Opinion : G.R. Nos. L-35546, L-35538, L-35539, L-35540, L-35547, L-35556, L-35567, L-35571 and L-35573 September 17, 1974 G.R. No. L-35546. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF BENIGNO S. AQUINO, JR., RAMON MITRA, JR., FRANCISCO RODRIGO, AND NAPOLEON RAMA, Petitioners, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, Repondents : G.R. No. L-35538. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF JOAQUIN P. ROCES, TEODORO M. LOCSIN, SR., ROLANDO FADUL, ROSALIND GALANG, GO ENG GUAN, MAXIMO V. SOLIVEN, RENATO CONSTANTINO, AND LUIS R. MAURICIO, Petitioners, v. THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; THE CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, Et Al. : G.R. No. L-35539. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF JOSE W. DIOKNO, CARMEN I. DIOKNO, v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; ROMEO ESPINO, THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES : G.R. No. L-35540. September 17, 1974. _ MAXIMO V. SOLIVEN, NAPOLEON G. RAMA, AND JOSE MARI VELEZ, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; HON. FRANCISCO TATAD, PRESS SECRETARY; AND GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY : G.R. No. L-35547. September 17, 1974. - ENRIQUE VOLTAIRE GARCIA II, v. BRIG GEN. FIDEL RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY; GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE : G.R. No. L-35556. September 17, 1974 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF VERONICA L. YUYITUNG AND TAN CHIN HIAN, v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; LIEUT. GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND BRIG. GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY : G.R. No. L-35567. September 17, 1974 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF AMANDO DORONILA, JUAN L. MERCADO, HERNANDO L. ABAYA, ERNESTO GRANADA, LUIS D. BELTRAN, TAN CHIN HIAN, BREN GUIAO, RUBEN CUSIPAG, ROBERTO ORDOŅEZ, MANUEL ALMARIO AND WILLIE BAUN, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; LIEUT. GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND BRIG. GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY : G.R. No. L-35571. September 17, 1974 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF BREN Z. GUIAO, TERESITA M. GUIAO, Petitioner, v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; LT. GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND BRIG. GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY : G.R. No. L-35573. September 17, 1974 - ERNESTO RONDON, Petitioner, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY; AND MAJOR RODULFO MIANA:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-35546. September 17, 1974.]

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF BENIGNO S. AQUINO, JR., RAMON MITRA, JR., FRANCISCO RODRIGO, AND NAPOLEON RAMA, Petitioners, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, Respondents.

[G.R. No. L-35538. September 17, 1974.]

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF JOAQUIN P. ROCES, TEODORO M. LOCSIN, SR., ROLANDO FADUL, ROSALIND GALANG, GO ENG GUAN, MAXIMO V. SOLIVEN, RENATO CONSTANTINO, AND LUIS R. MAURICIO, Petitioners, v. THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; THE CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, Et Al., Respondents.

[G.R. No. L-35539. September 17, 1974.]

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF JOSE W. DIOKNO, CARMEN I. DIOKNO, 1 petitioner, v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; ROMEO ESPINO, THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

[G.R. No. L-35540. September 17, 1974.]

MAXIMO V. SOLIVEN, NAPOLEON G. RAMA, AND JOSE MARI VELEZ, Petitioners, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; HON. FRANCISCO TATAD, PRESS SECRETARY; AND GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, Respondents.

[G.R. No. L-35547. September 17, 1974.] 2

ENRIQUE VOLTAIRE GARCIA II, Petitioner, v. BRIG GEN. FIDEL RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY; GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, Respondents.

[G.R. No. L-35556. September 17, 1974.]

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF VERONICA L. YUYITUNG AND TAN CHIN HIAN, Petitioners, v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; LIEUT. GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND BRIG. GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, Respondents.

[G.R. No. L-35567. September 17, 1974.]

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF AMANDO DORONILA, JUAN L. MERCADO, HERNANDO L. ABAYA, ERNESTO GRANADA, LUIS D. BELTRAN, TAN CHIN HIAN, BREN GUIAO, RUBEN CUSIPAG, ROBERTO ORDOÑEZ, MANUEL ALMARIO AND WILLIE BAUN, Petitioners, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; LIEUT. GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND BRIG. GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, Respondents.

[G.R. No. L-35571. September 17, 1974.] 3

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF BREN Z. GUIAO, TERESITA M. GUIAO, Petitioner, v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; LT. GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND BRIG. GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, Respondents.

[G.R. No. L-35573. September 17, 1974.]

ERNESTO RONDON, Petitioner, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY; AND MAJOR RODULFO MIANA, Respondents.


SEPARATE OPINION


TEEHANKEE, J., concurring and dissenting:
chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Prefatory statement: This separate opinion was prepared and scheduled to be promulgated with the judgment of the Court (penned by the Chief Justice) on September 12, 1974. Such promulgation was however overtaken by the welcome news of the release from detention on September 11, 1974 of petitioner Jose W. Diokno upon the order of President Ferdinand E. Marcos, and the Court then resolved to defer promulgation until the following week. Hence, Part I of this opinion dealing with the Diokno petition should be read in such time context.

The two other parts thereof dealing with the Aquino and Rodrigo cases are to be read as of the actual date of promulgation, since they reiterate a main theme of the opinion that the Court should adhere to the well-grounded principle of not ruling on constitutional issues except when necessary in an appropriate case. In the writer’s view, the gratifying development in the Diokno case which rendered his petition moot by virtue of his release once more demonstrates the validity of this principle.

I. On the Diokno petition: I vote for the granting of petitioner Jose W. Diokno’s motion of December 29, 1973 to withdraw the petition for habeas corpusfiled on September 23, 1972 on his behalf and the supplemental petition and motions for immediate release and for oral argument of June 29, 1973 and August 14, 1973 filed in support thereof, as prayed for

1. The present action is one of habeas corpusand the detainee’s own withdrawal of his petition is decisive. If the detainee himself withdraws his petition and no longer wishes this Court to pass upon the legality of his detention and cites the other pending habeas corpuscases which have not been withdrawn and wherein the Court can rule on the constitutional issues if so minded, 1 such withdrawal of a habeas corpuspetition should be granted practically as a matter of absolute right (whatever be the motivations therefor) in the same manner that the withdrawal motions of the petitioners in the other cases were previously granted by the Court. 2

Since there were seven (7) members of the Court who voted for granting the withdrawal motion as against five (5) members who voted for denying the same and rendering a decision, 3 I submit that this majority of seven (7) out of the Court’s membership of twelve (12) is a sufficient majority for granting the withdrawal prayed for. A simple majority of seven is legally sufficient for the granting of a withdrawal of a petition, since it does not involve the rendition of a decision on the merits. It is only where a decision is to be rendered on the merits by the Court en banc that the 1973 Constitution requires the concurrence of at least eight (8) members. 4

I therefore dissent from the majority’s adhering to the five-member minority view that the majority of seven members is not legally sufficient for granting withdrawal and that a decision on the merits be rendered notwithstanding the withdrawal of the petition.

2. The granting of the withdrawal of the petition is but in consonance with the fundamental principle on the exercise of judicial power which, in the words of the Solicitor-General, "as Justice Laurel emphasized, is justifiable only as a necessity for the resolution of an actual case and controversy and therefore should be confined to the very lis mota presented." 5

Such withdrawal is furthermore in accord with the respondents’ stand from the beginning urging the Court not to take cognizance (for want of jurisdiction or as a matter of judicial restraint citing Brandeis’ injunction that "The most important thing we decide is what not to decide" 6 ) or that "at the very least, this Court should postpone consideration of this case until the present emergency is over." 7

Many of the other petitioners in the habeas corpuscases at bar were granted leave to withdraw their petitions. Petitioner Diokno’s withdrawal motion should likewise be granted in line with the well-established doctrine that the Court will not rule on constitutional issues except when necessary in an appropriate case.

3. But the Solicitor-General now objects to the withdrawal on the ground of public interest and that "this Tribunal . . . has been used as the open forum for underground propaganda by those who have political axes to grind" with the circulation of the withdrawal motion and that this Court would be "putting the seal of approval" and in effect admit the "unfair, untrue and contemptuous" statements made in the withdrawal motion should this Court grant the withdrawal. 8 I see no point in the position taken by the Solicitor-General of urging the Court to deny the withdrawal motion only to render a decision that would after all dismiss the petition and sustain respondents’ defense of political question and have the Court declare itself without jurisdiction to adjudicate the constitutional issues presented 9 and asking the Court to embrace the "pragmatic method" of William James which "rejects . the a priori assumption that there are immutable principles of justice. It tests a proposition by its practical consequences." 10 The objections are untenable.

The public interest objection is met by the fact that there are still pending other cases (principally the prohibition case of petitioner Benigno S. Aquino, Jr. in another case, L-37364 questioning the filing of grave charges under the Anti-Subversion Act, etc. against him with a military commission 11 and which is not yet submitted for decision) where the same constitutional issues may be resolved.

The other objections are tenuous: The Solicitor-General refutes his own objections in his closing statement in his comment that "for their part, respondents are confident that in the end they would be upheld in their defense, as indeed petitioner and counsel have practically confessed judgment in this case." 12

The propaganda objection is not a valid ground for denying the withdrawal of the petition and should not be held against petitioner who had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

The objection that granting the withdrawal motion would amount to an admission of the "unfair, untrue and contemptuous statements" made therein is untenable since it is patent that granting the withdrawal motion per se (regardless of petitioner’s reasons) does not amount to an admission of the truth or validity of such reasons and as conceded by the Solicitor-General, neither will denying the withdrawal motion per se disprove the reasons. 13 The untruth, unfairness or contumacy of such reasons may best be dealt with, clarified or expounded by the Court and its members in the Court’s resolution granting withdrawal or in the of the individual Justices (as has actually been done and which the writer will now proceed to do).

4. Petitioner’s first reason for withdrawal is subjective. After mentioning various factors, particularly, the fact that five of the six Justices (including the writer) who held in the Ratification cases 14 that the 1973 Constitution had not been validly ratified, had taken on October 29, 1973 an oath to support and defend the new Constitution, he expresses his feeling that "(I) cannot reasonably expect either right or reason, law or justice, to prevail in my case," that "the unusual length of the struggle also indicates that its conscience is losing the battle" and that "since I do not wish to be a party to an adverse decision, I must renounce every possibility of favorable judgment." 15 A party’s subjective evaluation of the Court’s action is actually of no moment, for it has always been recognized that this Court, possessed of neither the sword nor the purse, must ultimately and objectively rest its authority on sustained public confidence in the truth, justice, integrity and moral force of its judgments. 16

Petitioner’s second reason for withdrawal reads: "(S)econd, in view of the new oath that its members have taken, the present Supreme Court is a new Court functioning under a new ‘Constitution,’ different from the Court and the Constitution under which I applied for my release. I was willing to be judged by the old Court under the old Constitution, but not by the new Court under the new ‘Constitution,’ . . ." 17

Petitioner is in error in his assumption that this Court is a "new Court functioning under a new Constitution different from the Court and the Constitution under which [he] applied for [his] release." The same Supreme Court has continued save that it now operates under Article X of the 1973 Constitution which inter alia increased its component membership from eleven to fifteen and transferred to it administrative supervision over all courts and personnel thereof with the power of discipline and dismissal over judges of inferior courts, in the same manner that the same Republic of the Philippines (of which the Supreme Court is but a part) has continued in existence but now operates under the 1973 Constitution. 18

During the period of ninety days that the Ratification cases were pending before the Court until its dismissal of the cases per its resolution of March 31, 1973 became final on April 17, 1973, the Executive Department was operating under the 1973 Constitution in accordance with President Ferdinand E. Marcos’ Proclamation No. 1102 on January 17, 1973 announcing the ratification and coming into effect of the 1973 Constitution while this Court as the only other governmental department continued to operate under the 1935 Constitution pending its final resolution on the said cases challenging the validity of Proclamation No. 1102 and enforcement of the new Constitution. (As per the Court’s resolution of January 23, 1973, it declined to take over from the Department of Justice the administrative supervision over all inferior courts expressing its sense that "it is best that the status quo be maintained until the case aforementioned (Javellana v. Exec. Secretary) shall have been finally resolved . . .")

Such a situation could not long endure wherein the only two great departments of government, the Executive and the Judicial, 19 for a period of three months were operating under two different Constitutions (presidential and parliamentary). When this Court’s resolution of dismissal of the Ratification cases by a majority of six to four Justices became final and was entered on April 18, 1973 "with the result that there (were) not enough votes to declare that the new Constitution is not in force," 20 the Court and particularly the remaining three dissenting Justices (notwithstanding their vote with three others that the new Constitution had not been validly ratified 21 had to abide under the Rule of Law by the decision of the majority dismissing the cases brought to enjoin the enforcement by the Executive of the new Constitution and had to operate under it as the fundamental charter of the government, unless they were to turn from legitimate dissent to internecine dissidence for which they have neither the inclination nor the capability.

The Court as the head of the Judicial Department thenceforth assumed the power of administrative supervision over all courts and all other functions and liabilities imposed on it under the new Constitution. Accordingly, this Court and all other existing inferior courts continue to discharge their judicial function and to hear and determine all pending cases filed or submitted under the old (1935) Constitution 22 as well as new cases under the new (1973) Constitution with the full support of the members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (none of whom has made petitioner’s claim that this is a "new Court" different from the "old Court").

A major liability imposed upon all members of the Court and all other officials and employees was that under Article XVII, section 9 of the Transitory Provisions 23 which was destructive of their tenure and called upon them "to vacate their respective offices upon the appointment and qualification of their successors." Their taking the oath on October 29, 1973 "to preserve and defend the new Constitution" by virtue of their "having been continued in office" 24 on the occasion of the oathtaking of three new members of the Court 25 pursuant to Article XV, section 4 26 was meant to assure their "continuity of tenure" by way of the President having exercised the power of replacement under the cited provision and in effect replaced them with themselves as members of the Court with the same order of seniority. 27

5. The withdrawal in effect gives cause for judicial abstention and further opportunity (pending submittal for decision of the Aquino prohibition case in L-37364) to ponder and deliberate upon the host of grave and fundamental constitutional questions involved which have thereby been rendered unnecessary to resolve here and now.

In the benchmark case of Lansang v. Garcia 28 when the Court declared that the President did not act arbitrarily in issuing in August, 1971 Proclamation No. 889, as amended, suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpusfor persons detained for the crimes of insurrection or rebellion and other overt acts committed by them in furtherance thereof, the Court held through then Chief Justice Concepcion that "our next step would have been the following: The Court, or a commissioner designated by it, would have received evidence on whether — as stated in respondents’ ‘Answer and Return’ — said petitioners had been apprehended and detained ‘on reasonable belief’ that they had ‘participated in the crime of insurrection or rebellion.’ "

(However, since in the interval of two months during the pendency of the case, criminal complaints had been filed in court against the petitioners-detainees (Luzvimindo David, Gary Olivar, Et Al.), the Court found that "it is best to let said preliminary examination and/or investigation be completed, so that petitioners’ release could be ordered by the court of first instance, should it find that there is no probable cause against them, or a warrant for their arrest could be issued should a probable cause be established against them." 29 The Court accordingly ordered the trial court "to act with utmost dispatch" in conducting the preliminary investigation for violation of the Anti-Subversion Act and "to issue the corresponding warrants of arrest, if probable cause is found to exist against them, or otherwise, to order their release.")

Can such a procedure for reception of evidence on the controverted allegations concerning the detention as indicated in Lansang be likewise applied to petitioner’s case considering his prolonged detention for almost two years now without charges? 30 It should also be considered that it is conceded that even though the privilege of the writ of habeas corpushas been suspended, it is suspended only as to certain specific crimes and the "answer and return" of the respondents who hold the petitioner under detention is not conclusive upon the courts which may receive evidence and determine as held in Lansang (and as also provided in the Anti-Subversion Act [Republic Act 1700]) whether a petitioner has been in fact apprehended and detained arbitrarily or "on reasonable belief" that he has "participated in the crime of insurrection or rebellion" or other related offenses as may be enumerated in the proclamation suspending the privilege of the writ.

Pertinent to this question is the Court’s adoption in Lansang of the doctrine of Sterling v. Constantin 31 enunciated through U.S. Chief Justice Hughes that even when the state has been placed under martial law ." . . (W)hen there is a substantial showing that the exertion of state power has overridden private rights secured by that Constitution, the subject is necessarily one for judicial inquiry in an appropriate proceeding directed against the individuals charged with the transgression. To such a case the Federal judicial power extends (Art. 3, sec. 2) and, so extending, the court has all the authority appropriate to its exercise. . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

Equally pertinent is the Court’s statement therein announcing the members’ unanimous conviction that "it has the authority to inquire into the existence of said factual bases [stated in the proclamation suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpusor placing the country under martial law as the case may be, since the requirements for the exercise of these powers are the same and are provided in the very same clause] in order to determine the constitutional sufficiency thereof." 32 The Court stressed therein that "indeed, the grant of power to suspend the privilege is neither absolute nor unqualified. The authority conferred upon by the Constitution, both under the Bill of Rights and under the Executive Department, is limited and conditional. The precept in the Bill of Rights establishes a general rule, as well as an exception thereto. What is more, it postulates the former in the negative, evidently to stress its importance, by providing that ‘(t)he privilege of the writ of habeas corpusshall not be suspended . . .’ It is only by way of exception that it permits the suspension of the privilege ‘in cases of invasion, insurrection, or rebellion’ — or under Art. VII of the Constitution, ‘imminent danger thereof’ — ‘when the public safety requires it, in any of which events the same may be suspended wherever during such period the necessity for such suspension shall exist.’ Far from being full and plenary, the authority to suspend the privilege of the writ is thus circumscribed, confined and restricted, not only by the prescribed setting or the conditions essential to its existence, but also, as regards the time when and the place where it may be exercised. These factors and the aforementioned setting or conditions mark, establish and define the extent, the confines and the limits of said power, beyond which it does not exist. And, like the limitations and restrictions imposed by the Fundamental Law upon the legislative department, adherence thereto and compliance therewith may, within proper bounds, be inquired into by the courts of justice. Otherwise, the explicit constitutional provisions thereon would be meaningless. Surely, the frames of our Constitution could not have intended to engage in such a wasteful exercise in futility." 33

While a state of martial law may bar such judicial inquiries under the writ of habeas corpusin the actual theater of war, would the proscription apply when martial law is maintained as an instrument of social reform and the civil courts (as well as military commissions) are open and freely functioning?

What is the extent and scope of the validating provision of Article XVII, section 3 (2) of the Transitory Provisions of the 1973 Constitution? 34

Granting the validation of the initial preventive detention, would the validating provision cover indefinite detention thereafter or may inquiry be made as to its reasonable relation to meeting the emergency situation?

What rights under the Bill of Rights, e.g. the rights to due process and to "speedy, impartial and public trial" 35 may be invoked under the present state of martial law?

Is the exercise of martial law powers for the institutionalization of reforms incompatible with recognizing the fundamental liberties granted in the Bill of Rights?

The President is well aware of the layman’s view of the "central problem of constitutionalism in our contemporary society . . . whether or not the Constitution remains an efficient instrument for the moderation of conflict within society. There are two aspects of this problem. One is the regulation of freedom in order to prevent anarchy. The other is the limitation of power in order to prevent tyranny." 36

Hence, he has declared that "The New Society looks to individual rights as a matter of paramount concern, removed from the vicissitudes of political controversy and beyond the reach of majorities. We are pledged to uphold the Bill of Rights and as the exigencies may so allow, we are determined that each provision shall be executed to the fullest," 37 and has acknowledged that "martial law necessarily creates a command society . . . [and] is a temporary constitutional expedient of safeguarding the republic . . ." 38

He has thus described the proclamation of martial law and "the setting up of a corresponding crisis government" as "constitutional authoritarianism," which is a recognition that while his government is authoritarian it is essentially constitutional and recognizes the supremacy of the new Constitution.

He has further declared that "martial law should have legally terminated on January 17, 1973 when the new Constitution was ratified" but that "the popular clamor manifested in the referendum [was] that the National Assembly be temporarily suspended" and the reaction in the July, 1973 referendum "was violently against stopping the use of martial law powers," adding that "I intend to submit this matter at least once a year to the people, and when they say we should shift to the normal functions of government, then we will do so.’’ 39

The realization of the prospects for restoration of normalcy and full implementation of each and every provision of the Bill of Rights as pledged by the President would then hopefully come sooner rather than later and provides an additional weighty reason for the exercise of judicial abstention under the environmental circumstances and for the granting of the withdrawal motion.

II. In the Aquino case: I maintain my original vote as first unanimously agreed by the Court for dismissal of the habeas corpuspetition of Benigno S. Aquino, Jr. on the ground that grave charges against him for violation of the Anti-Subversion Act (Republic Act 1700), etc. were filed in August, 1973 and hence the present petition has been superseded by the prohibition case then filed by him questioning the filing of the charges against him with a military commission rather than with the civil courts (which case is not yet submitted for decision).

The said prohibition case involves the same constitutional issues raised in the Diokno case and more, concerning the constitutionality of having him tried by a military commission for offenses allegedly committed by him long before the declaration of martial law. This is evident from the special and affirmative defenses raised in respondents’ answer therein filed just last August 21, 1974 by the Solicitor General which reiterate the same defenses in his answer to the petition at bar. Hence, the same constitutional issues may well be resolved if necessary in the decision yet to be rendered by the Court in said prohibition case.

I therefore dissent from the subsequent vote of the majority to instead pass upon and resolve in advance the said constitutional issues unnecessarily in the present case.

III. In the Rodrigo case: I submit that the habeas corpuspetition of Francisco "Soc" Rodrigo as well as the petitions of those others similarly released should be dismissed for having been rendered moot and academic by virtue of their release from physical confinement and detention. That their release has been made subject to certain conditions (e.g. not being allowed to leave the Greater Manila area without specific authorization of the military authorities) does not mean that their action would survive, since "(T)he restraint of liberty which would justify the issuance of the writ must be more than a mere moral restraint; it must be actual or physical." 40 They may have some other judicial recourse for the removal of such restraints but their action for habeas corpuscannot survive since they are no longer deprived of their physical liberty. For these reasons and those already expounded hereinabove, I dissent from the majority vote to pass upon and resolve in advance the constitutional issues unnecessarily in the present case.



Endnotes:



1. Petitioner’s Reply to Solicitor-General’s Comment dated March 7, 1974, pp. 40-41.

2. Idem, pp. 39-40; see L-35556, L-35567 and L-35571 where petitions were withdrawn with leave of the Court.

3. Makalintal, C.J.and Zaldivar, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo, Muñoz Palma and Aquino, JJ. voted for granting the withdrawal motion. Castro, Makasiar, Antonio, Esguerra and Fernandez, JJ. voted for denial of the motion.

4. Article X, section 2, which further requires the concurrence of at least ten (10) members to declare unconstitutional a treaty, executive agreement or law.

5. Respondents’ comment of Jan. 17, 1974 on motion to withdraw petition, p. 6.

6. Idem. p. 5.

7. Respondents’ memorandum of Nov. 17, 1972, pp. 41-47.

8. Respondents’ comment of Jan. 17, 1974, pp. 3, 5 and 16.

The Solicitor-General’s line of argument: "(T)he charge in the case at bar goes to the very foundations of our system of justice and the respect that is due to it. It is subversive of public confidence in the impartiality and independence of courts and tends to embarrass the administration of justice. As has been aptly said, ‘The Court’s authority — possessed of neither the purse nor the sword — ultimately rests on sustained public confidence in its moral sanction. Such feeling must he nourished by the Court’s complete detachment, in fact and in appearance, from political entanglements and by abstention from injecting itself into the clash of political forces in political settlements.’ (Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 266, 267, Frankfurter, J. dissenting [1962].)

"Unless, therefore, the charge is rectified anything this Court will do in the case at bar is likely to be misconstrued in the public mind. If this Court decides this case and renders judgment against petitioner, its decision is likely to be misinterpreted either as a vindictive action taken against the petitioner or as proving his charge. If it grants the Motion to Withdraw it will be confessing the very judgment expressed by the petitioner — that this Court cannot do justice in this case. Perhaps the only way open for it would be to render judgment for the petitioner, although then others will likely think that the Court is reacting to the charge. ‘It is this harmful obstruction and hindrance that the judiciary strives to avoid, under penalty of contempt,’ as this Court explained in another case. (Herras Teehankee v. Director of Prisons, re Antonio Quirino, 76 Phil. 630 [1946].)"

9. Solicitor-General’s Reply to petitioner’s comment (re Manifestation) dated June 10, 1974, pp. 2-4.

10. Respondents’ Reply to Petitioner’s Sur-Rejoinder (re motion to withdraw) dated June 10, 1974, pp. 5-6, citing James, What Pragmatism Means in Human Experience and its Problems: Introductory Readings in Philosophy, 23, 25 (A. Tsambassis, ed. 1967).

11. Filed on August 23, 1973.

12. Respondents’ comment of Jan. 17, 1974, p. 17; Emphasis supplied.

13. Solicitor-General’s Reply to petitioner’s comment, dated June 10, 1974, p. 13.

14. Javellana v. Exec. Secretary, L-36142, Et Al., Mar. 31, 1973.

15. Petitioner’s withdrawal motion of Dec. 29, 1973, pp. 3, 4 and 7.

16. Thus, on April 7, 1973, after its decision of March 31, 1973 dismissing the Ratification cases, acting upon the urgent petition of the wives of petitioners Diokno and Aquino that their visitation privileges had been suspended and that they had lost all contact for over a month with the detainees whose personal effects were returned to their homes, the Court in Case L-36315 "upon humanitarian considerations resolved unanimously to grant pending further action by this Court, that portion of the prayer in petitioner’s "Supplement and/or amendment to petition" filed on April 6, 1973 that the wives and minor children of petitioners Diokno and Aquino be allowed to visit them, subject to such precautions as respondents may deem necessary."cralaw virtua1aw library

17. Petitioner’s withdrawal motion, pp. 6-7.

18. Subject to the transitory provisions of Article XVII.

19. Congress no longer convened on January 22, 1973 as ordained by the 1935 Constitution; see Roxas v. Executive Secretary, L-36165, March 31, 1973, with a majority of its members opting to serve in the abortive Interim National Assembly under Art. XVII, sec. 2 of the 1973 Constitution.

20. Javellana v. Exec. Secretary, 50 SCRA 30, 141.

21. Justices Zaldivar, Fernando and the writer, with Chief Justice Concepcion, retired, and now Chief Justice Makalintal and Justice Castro.

22. Article XVII, sec. 8, 1973 Constitution.

23. "SEC. 9. All officials and employees in the existing Government of the Republic of the Philippines shall continue in office until otherwise provided by law or decreed by the incumbent President of the Philippines, but all officials whose appointments are by this Constitution vested in the Prime Minister shall vacate their respective offices upon the appointment and qualification of their successors."cralaw virtua1aw library

24. "na pinapagpatuloy sa panunungkulan" as stated in the original oath in Pilipino.

25. Fernandez, Muñoz Palma and Aquino, JJ.

26. "SEC. 4. All public officers and employees and members of the armed forces shall take an oath to support and defend the Constitution."cralaw virtua1aw library

27. See Phil. Express, Times Journal and Bulletin Today issues of Oct. 30, 1973. The Court and the Integrated Bar have since then petitioned the President to extend likewise the same security of tenure to all other judges of inferior courts from the Court of Appeals down by setting a time limit to the exercise of his power of summary replacement.

28. 42 SCRA 448, 462, 492.

29. Except Justice Fernando who opined that "(B)y the same token, if and when formal complaint is presented, the court steps in and the executive steps out. The detention ceases to be an executive and becomes a judicial concern. Thereupon the corresponding court assumes its role and the judicial process takes its course to the exclusion of the executive or the legislative departments. Henceforward, the accused is entitled to demand all the constitutional safeguards and privileges essential to due process." citing Justice Tuason’s opinion in Nava v. Gatmaitan, 90 Phil. 172 (1951).

30. Since September 23, 1972.

31. 287 U.S. 375, 385; emphasis copied from Lansang, 42 SCRA at p. 473.

32. Referring to the requirements of Art. III, sec. 1, par. 14 and Art. VII, sec 11, par. 2 of the 1935 Constitution, now Art. IV, sec. 15 reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 12. The Prime Minister [President] shall be commander-in-chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and, whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion, insurrection, or rebellion. In case of invasion, insurrection, or rebellion, or imminent danger thereof, when the public safety requires it, he may suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law." (Art. IX, sec. 12, 1973 Constitution and Art. VII, sec 11 (2) 1935 Constitution).

33. 42 SCRA at pp. 473-474; emphasis copied.

34. "SEC. 3. (2) All proclamations, orders, decrees, instructions, and acts promulgated, issued, or done by the incumbent President shall be part of the law of the land, and shall remain valid, legal binding, and effective even after lifting of martial law or the ratification of this Constitution, unless modified, revoked, or superseded by subsequent proclamations, orders decrees instructions or other acts of the incumbent President or unless expressly and explicitly modified or repealed by regular National Assembly.

35. Art. IV, sec. 1 and 19, Bill of Rights, 1973 Constitution.

36. Salvador P. Lopez, U.P. president’s keynote address. Dec. 3, 1973 at the U.P. Law Center Series on the 1973 Constitution.

37. President Marcos: "Democracy: a living ideology" delivered May 25, 1973 before the U.P. Law Alumni Association; Times Journal issue of May 28, 1973.

38. President Marcos: Foreword, Notes on the New Society, p. vi.

39. U.S. News and World Report, Interview with President Marcos, reported in Phil. Sunday Express issue of August 18, 1974.

40. Gonzales v. Viola, 61 Phil. 824; See also Zagala v. Ilustre, 48 Phil. 282; and Tan v. Collector of Customs; 34 Phil. 944.



Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





September-1974 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-37919 September 6, 1974 - BIENVENIDO U. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23155 September 9, 1974 - RUFINO G. BARTULATA v. MACARIO PERALTA, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30351 September 11, 1974 - AUREA BAÑEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-32733 September 11, 1974 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFONSO MANANGAN

  • G.R. No. L-37443 September 11, 1974 - IN RE: CHUA KIAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • A.C. No. 533 September 12, 1974 - IN RE: FLORENCIO MALLARE

  • G.R. No. L-25246 September 12, 1974 - BENJAMIN VICTORIANO v. ELIZALDE ROPE WORKERS’ UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26657 September 12, 1974 - VISAYAN STEVEDORE & TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27526 September 12, 1974 - ANGELITA G. VDA. DE VALERA, ET AL. v. MACARIO M. OFILADA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28782 September 12, 1974 - AUYONG HIAN v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32276 September 12, 1974 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE ALVIAR Y TUAZON

  • G.R. No. L-34663 September 12, 1974 - SIMON GENCIANA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-38945-47 September 12, 1974 - DEMOCRITO BARRIDO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38565 September 16, 1974 - BAYANI SARMIENTO, ET AL. v. CONSTANTINO NOLASCO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 128-MJ September 18, 1974 - SEGUNDINA CORAL v. JOSE CONSOLACION-SERRANO

  • G.R. No. L-35494 September 18, 1974 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO IGNACIO

  • G.R. No. L-27314 September 26, 1974 - TEODOSIA ALFILER, ET AL. v. WALFRIDO DE LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33818 September 26, 1973

    LECAR & SONS, INC. v. ARTURO R. TANCO, JR., ETC., ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-44 September 30, 1974 - MOISES M. MASPIL, ET AL. v. FERNANDO R. ROMERO

  • A.M. No. 440-CFI September 30, 1974 - REMEDIOS I. JUGUETA v. ALEJANDRO R. BONCAROS

  • G.R. No. L-18717 September 30, 1974 - CASIMIRO ESTANISLAO, ET AL. v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27396 September 30, 1974 - JESUS V. OCCEÑA, ET AL. v. PAULINO S. MARQUEZ

  • G.R. No. L-28693 September 30, 1974 - VI VE CHEMICAL PRODUCTS, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-30450-51 September 30, 1974 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO BODUSO

  • G.R. No. L-30978 September 30, 1974 - FORTUNATO MEDINA v. MANUEL T. YAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32078 September 30, 1974 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BALTAZAR LACAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32408 September 30, 1974 - IN RE: PO SOON TEK v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-33293 September 30, 1974 - DOMINGO FERRER, ET AL. v. FLORENCIO VILLAMOR

  • G.R. No. L-34317 September 30, 1974 - WALFRIDO DE LOS ANGELES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-34369 September 30, 1974 - ANTONIO VILLASIS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-36874-76 September 30, 1974 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO REYES

  • G.R. No. L-37949 September 30, 1974 - JUAN ALONZO v. CFI OF CAGAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39059 September 30, 1974 - ANTONIO CABALLERO, ET AL. v. ALMA DEIPARINE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39373 September 30, 1974 - FELIXBERTO W. FERRER v. YANG SEPENG

  • A.M. No. P-227 September 30, 1974 - BENJAMIN N. MUÑASQUE v. ROSALINA CAPE

  • G.R. Nos. L-35546, L-35538, L-35539, L-35540, L-35547, L-35556, L-35567, L-35571 and L-35573 September 17, 1974 - G.R. No. L-35546. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF BENIGNO S. AQUINO, JR., RAMON MITRA, JR., FRANCISCO RODRIGO, AND NAPOLEON RAMA, Petitioners, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, Repondents : G.R. No. L-35538. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF JOAQUIN P. ROCES, TEODORO M. LOCSIN, SR., ROLANDO FADUL, ROSALIND GALANG, GO ENG GUAN, MAXIMO V. SOLIVEN, RENATO CONSTANTINO, AND LUIS R. MAURICIO, Petitioners, v. THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; THE CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, Et Al. : G.R. No. L-35539. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF JOSE W. DIOKNO, CARMEN I. DIOKNO, v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; ROMEO ESPINO, THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES : G.R. No. L-35540. September 17, 1974. _ MAXIMO V. SOLIVEN, NAPOLEON G. RAMA, AND JOSE MARI VELEZ, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; HON. FRANCISCO TATAD, PRESS SECRETARY; AND GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY : G.R. No. L-35547. September 17, 1974. - ENRIQUE VOLTAIRE GARCIA II, v. BRIG GEN. FIDEL RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY; GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE : G.R. No. L-35556. September 17, 1974 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF VERONICA L. YUYITUNG AND TAN CHIN HIAN, v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; LIEUT. GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND BRIG. GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY : G.R. No. L-35567. September 17, 1974 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF AMANDO DORONILA, JUAN L. MERCADO, HERNANDO L. ABAYA, ERNESTO GRANADA, LUIS D. BELTRAN, TAN CHIN HIAN, BREN GUIAO, RUBEN CUSIPAG, ROBERTO ORDOŅEZ, MANUEL ALMARIO AND WILLIE BAUN, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; LIEUT. GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND BRIG. GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY : G.R. No. L-35571. September 17, 1974 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF BREN Z. GUIAO, TERESITA M. GUIAO, Petitioner, v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; LT. GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND BRIG. GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY : G.R. No. L-35573. September 17, 1974 - ERNESTO RONDON, Petitioner, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY; AND MAJOR RODULFO MIANA

  • Antonio, J., Concurring : Separate Opinion : G.R. Nos. L-35546, L-35538, L-35539, L-35540, L-35547, L-35556, L-35567, L-35571 and L-35573 September 17, 1974 - G.R. No. L-35546. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF BENIGNO S. AQUINO, JR., RAMON MITRA, JR., FRANCISCO RODRIGO, AND NAPOLEON RAMA, Petitioners, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, Repondents : G.R. No. L-35538. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF JOAQUIN P. ROCES, TEODORO M. LOCSIN, SR., ROLANDO FADUL, ROSALIND GALANG, GO ENG GUAN, MAXIMO V. SOLIVEN, RENATO CONSTANTINO, AND LUIS R. MAURICIO, Petitioners, v. THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; THE CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, Et Al. : G.R. No. L-35539. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF JOSE W. DIOKNO, CARMEN I. DIOKNO, v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; ROMEO ESPINO, THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES : G.R. No. L-35540. September 17, 1974. _ MAXIMO V. SOLIVEN, NAPOLEON G. RAMA, AND JOSE MARI VELEZ, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; HON. FRANCISCO TATAD, PRESS SECRETARY; AND GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY : G.R. No. L-35547. September 17, 1974. - ENRIQUE VOLTAIRE GARCIA II, v. BRIG GEN. FIDEL RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY; GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE : G.R. No. L-35556. September 17, 1974 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF VERONICA L. YUYITUNG AND TAN CHIN HIAN, v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; LIEUT. GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND BRIG. GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY : G.R. No. L-35567. September 17, 1974 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF AMANDO DORONILA, JUAN L. MERCADO, HERNANDO L. ABAYA, ERNESTO GRANADA, LUIS D. BELTRAN, TAN CHIN HIAN, BREN GUIAO, RUBEN CUSIPAG, ROBERTO ORDOŅEZ, MANUEL ALMARIO AND WILLIE BAUN, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; LIEUT. GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND BRIG. GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY : G.R. No. L-35571. September 17, 1974 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF BREN Z. GUIAO, TERESITA M. GUIAO, Petitioner, v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; LT. GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND BRIG. GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY : G.R. No. L-35573. September 17, 1974 - ERNESTO RONDON, Petitioner, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY; AND MAJOR RODULFO MIANA

  • Barredo, J., Concurring : Separate Opinion : G.R. Nos. L-35546, L-35538, L-35539, L-35540, L-35547, L-35556, L-35567, L-35571 and L-35573 September 17, 1974 - G.R. No. L-35546. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF BENIGNO S. AQUINO, JR., RAMON MITRA, JR., FRANCISCO RODRIGO, AND NAPOLEON RAMA, Petitioners, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, Repondents : G.R. No. L-35538. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF JOAQUIN P. ROCES, TEODORO M. LOCSIN, SR., ROLANDO FADUL, ROSALIND GALANG, GO ENG GUAN, MAXIMO V. SOLIVEN, RENATO CONSTANTINO, AND LUIS R. MAURICIO, Petitioners, v. THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; THE CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, Et Al. : G.R. No. L-35539. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF JOSE W. DIOKNO, CARMEN I. DIOKNO, v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; ROMEO ESPINO, THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES : G.R. No. L-35540. September 17, 1974. _ MAXIMO V. SOLIVEN, NAPOLEON G. RAMA, AND JOSE MARI VELEZ, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; HON. FRANCISCO TATAD, PRESS SECRETARY; AND GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY : G.R. No. L-35547. September 17, 1974. - ENRIQUE VOLTAIRE GARCIA II, v. BRIG GEN. FIDEL RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY; GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE : G.R. No. L-35556. September 17, 1974 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF VERONICA L. YUYITUNG AND TAN CHIN HIAN, v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; LIEUT. GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND BRIG. GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY : G.R. No. L-35567. September 17, 1974 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF AMANDO DORONILA, JUAN L. MERCADO, HERNANDO L. ABAYA, ERNESTO GRANADA, LUIS D. BELTRAN, TAN CHIN HIAN, BREN GUIAO, RUBEN CUSIPAG, ROBERTO ORDOŅEZ, MANUEL ALMARIO AND WILLIE BAUN, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; LIEUT. GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND BRIG. GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY : G.R. No. L-35571. September 17, 1974 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF BREN Z. GUIAO, TERESITA M. GUIAO, Petitioner, v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; LT. GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND BRIG. GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY : G.R. No. L-35573. September 17, 1974 - ERNESTO RONDON, Petitioner, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY; AND MAJOR RODULFO MIANA

  • Castro, J., Concurring : Separate Opinion : G.R. Nos. L-35546, L-35538, L-35539, L-35540, L-35547, L-35556, L-35567, L-35571 and L-35573 September 17, 1974 - G.R. No. L-35546. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF BENIGNO S. AQUINO, JR., RAMON MITRA, JR., FRANCISCO RODRIGO, AND NAPOLEON RAMA, Petitioners, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, Repondents : G.R. No. L-35538. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF JOAQUIN P. ROCES, TEODORO M. LOCSIN, SR., ROLANDO FADUL, ROSALIND GALANG, GO ENG GUAN, MAXIMO V. SOLIVEN, RENATO CONSTANTINO, AND LUIS R. MAURICIO, Petitioners, v. THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; THE CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, Et Al. : G.R. No. L-35539. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF JOSE W. DIOKNO, CARMEN I. DIOKNO, v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; ROMEO ESPINO, THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES : G.R. No. L-35540. September 17, 1974. _ MAXIMO V. SOLIVEN, NAPOLEON G. RAMA, AND JOSE MARI VELEZ, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; HON. FRANCISCO TATAD, PRESS SECRETARY; AND GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY : G.R. No. L-35547. September 17, 1974. - ENRIQUE VOLTAIRE GARCIA II, v. BRIG GEN. FIDEL RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY; GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE : G.R. No. L-35556. September 17, 1974 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF VERONICA L. YUYITUNG AND TAN CHIN HIAN, v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; LIEUT. GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND BRIG. GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY : G.R. No. L-35567. September 17, 1974 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF AMANDO DORONILA, JUAN L. MERCADO, HERNANDO L. ABAYA, ERNESTO GRANADA, LUIS D. BELTRAN, TAN CHIN HIAN, BREN GUIAO, RUBEN CUSIPAG, ROBERTO ORDOŅEZ, MANUEL ALMARIO AND WILLIE BAUN, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; LIEUT. GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND BRIG. GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY : G.R. No. L-35571. September 17, 1974 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF BREN Z. GUIAO, TERESITA M. GUIAO, Petitioner, v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; LT. GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND BRIG. GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY : G.R. No. L-35573. September 17, 1974 - ERNESTO RONDON, Petitioner, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY; AND MAJOR RODULFO MIANA

  • Esguerra, J., Concurring : Separate Opinion : G.R. Nos. L-35546, L-35538, L-35539, L-35540, L-35547, L-35556, L-35567, L-35571 and L-35573 September 17, 1974 - G.R. No. L-35546. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF BENIGNO S. AQUINO, JR., RAMON MITRA, JR., FRANCISCO RODRIGO, AND NAPOLEON RAMA, Petitioners, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, Repondents : G.R. No. L-35538. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF JOAQUIN P. ROCES, TEODORO M. LOCSIN, SR., ROLANDO FADUL, ROSALIND GALANG, GO ENG GUAN, MAXIMO V. SOLIVEN, RENATO CONSTANTINO, AND LUIS R. MAURICIO, Petitioners, v. THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; THE CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, Et Al. : G.R. No. L-35539. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF JOSE W. DIOKNO, CARMEN I. DIOKNO, v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; ROMEO ESPINO, THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES : G.R. No. L-35540. September 17, 1974. _ MAXIMO V. SOLIVEN, NAPOLEON G. RAMA, AND JOSE MARI VELEZ, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; HON. FRANCISCO TATAD, PRESS SECRETARY; AND GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY : G.R. No. L-35547. September 17, 1974. - ENRIQUE VOLTAIRE GARCIA II, v. BRIG GEN. FIDEL RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY; GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE : G.R. No. L-35556. September 17, 1974 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF VERONICA L. YUYITUNG AND TAN CHIN HIAN, v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; LIEUT. GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND BRIG. GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY : G.R. No. L-35567. September 17, 1974 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF AMANDO DORONILA, JUAN L. MERCADO, HERNANDO L. ABAYA, ERNESTO GRANADA, LUIS D. BELTRAN, TAN CHIN HIAN, BREN GUIAO, RUBEN CUSIPAG, ROBERTO ORDOŅEZ, MANUEL ALMARIO AND WILLIE BAUN, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; LIEUT. GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND BRIG. GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY : G.R. No. L-35571. September 17, 1974 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF BREN Z. GUIAO, TERESITA M. GUIAO, Petitioner, v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; LT. GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND BRIG. GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY : G.R. No. L-35573. September 17, 1974 - ERNESTO RONDON, Petitioner, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY; AND MAJOR RODULFO MIANA

  • Fenandez, J., Concurring : Separate Opinion : G.R. Nos. L-35546, L-35538, L-35539, L-35540, L-35547, L-35556, L-35567, L-35571 and L-35573 September 17, 1974 - G.R. No. L-35546. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF BENIGNO S. AQUINO, JR., RAMON MITRA, JR., FRANCISCO RODRIGO, AND NAPOLEON RAMA, Petitioners, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, Repondents : G.R. No. L-35538. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF JOAQUIN P. ROCES, TEODORO M. LOCSIN, SR., ROLANDO FADUL, ROSALIND GALANG, GO ENG GUAN, MAXIMO V. SOLIVEN, RENATO CONSTANTINO, AND LUIS R. MAURICIO, Petitioners, v. THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; THE CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, Et Al. : G.R. No. L-35539. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF JOSE W. DIOKNO, CARMEN I. DIOKNO, v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; ROMEO ESPINO, THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES : G.R. No. L-35540. September 17, 1974. _ MAXIMO V. SOLIVEN, NAPOLEON G. RAMA, AND JOSE MARI VELEZ, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; HON. FRANCISCO TATAD, PRESS SECRETARY; AND GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY : G.R. No. L-35547. September 17, 1974. - ENRIQUE VOLTAIRE GARCIA II, v. BRIG GEN. FIDEL RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY; GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE : G.R. No. L-35556. September 17, 1974 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF VERONICA L. YUYITUNG AND TAN CHIN HIAN, v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; LIEUT. GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND BRIG. GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY : G.R. No. L-35567. September 17, 1974 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF AMANDO DORONILA, JUAN L. MERCADO, HERNANDO L. ABAYA, ERNESTO GRANADA, LUIS D. BELTRAN, TAN CHIN HIAN, BREN GUIAO, RUBEN CUSIPAG, ROBERTO ORDOŅEZ, MANUEL ALMARIO AND WILLIE BAUN, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; LIEUT. GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND BRIG. GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY : G.R. No. L-35571. September 17, 1974 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF BREN Z. GUIAO, TERESITA M. GUIAO, Petitioner, v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; LT. GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND BRIG. GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY : G.R. No. L-35573. September 17, 1974 - ERNESTO RONDON, Petitioner, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY; AND MAJOR RODULFO MIANA

  • Fernando, J., Concurring and Dissenting: Separate Opinion : G.R. Nos. L-35546, L-35538, L-35539, L-35540, L-35547, L-35556, L-35567, L-35571 and L-35573 September 17, 1974 G.R. No. L-35546. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF BENIGNO S. AQUINO, JR., RAMON MITRA, JR., FRANCISCO RODRIGO, AND NAPOLEON RAMA, Petitioners, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, Repondents : G.R. No. L-35538. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF JOAQUIN P. ROCES, TEODORO M. LOCSIN, SR., ROLANDO FADUL, ROSALIND GALANG, GO ENG GUAN, MAXIMO V. SOLIVEN, RENATO CONSTANTINO, AND LUIS R. MAURICIO, Petitioners, v. THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; THE CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, Et Al. : G.R. No. L-35539. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF JOSE W. DIOKNO, CARMEN I. DIOKNO, v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; ROMEO ESPINO, THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES : G.R. No. L-35540. September 17, 1974. _ MAXIMO V. SOLIVEN, NAPOLEON G. RAMA, AND JOSE MARI VELEZ, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; HON. FRANCISCO TATAD, PRESS SECRETARY; AND GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY : G.R. No. L-35547. September 17, 1974. - ENRIQUE VOLTAIRE GARCIA II, v. BRIG GEN. FIDEL RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY; GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE : G.R. No. L-35556. September 17, 1974 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF VERONICA L. YUYITUNG AND TAN CHIN HIAN, v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; LIEUT. GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND BRIG. GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY : G.R. No. L-35567. September 17, 1974 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF AMANDO DORONILA, JUAN L. MERCADO, HERNANDO L. ABAYA, ERNESTO GRANADA, LUIS D. BELTRAN, TAN CHIN HIAN, BREN GUIAO, RUBEN CUSIPAG, ROBERTO ORDOŅEZ, MANUEL ALMARIO AND WILLIE BAUN, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; LIEUT. GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND BRIG. GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY : G.R. No. L-35571. September 17, 1974 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF BREN Z. GUIAO, TERESITA M. GUIAO, Petitioner, v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; LT. GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND BRIG. GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY : G.R. No. L-35573. September 17, 1974 - ERNESTO RONDON, Petitioner, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY; AND MAJOR RODULFO MIANA

  • MUŅOZ PALMA, J., Dissenting : Separate Opinion : G.R. Nos. L-35546, L-35538, L-35539, L-35540, L-35547, L-35556, L-35567, L-35571 and L-35573 September 17, 1974 - G.R. No. L-35546. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF BENIGNO S. AQUINO, JR., RAMON MITRA, JR., FRANCISCO RODRIGO, AND NAPOLEON RAMA, Petitioners, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, Repondents : G.R. No. L-35538. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF JOAQUIN P. ROCES, TEODORO M. LOCSIN, SR., ROLANDO FADUL, ROSALIND GALANG, GO ENG GUAN, MAXIMO V. SOLIVEN, RENATO CONSTANTINO, AND LUIS R. MAURICIO, Petitioners, v. THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; THE CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, Et Al. : G.R. No. L-35539. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF JOSE W. DIOKNO, CARMEN I. DIOKNO, v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; ROMEO ESPINO, THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES : G.R. No. L-35540. September 17, 1974. _ MAXIMO V. SOLIVEN, NAPOLEON G. RAMA, AND JOSE MARI VELEZ, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; HON. FRANCISCO TATAD, PRESS SECRETARY; AND GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY : G.R. No. L-35547. September 17, 1974. - ENRIQUE VOLTAIRE GARCIA II, v. BRIG GEN. FIDEL RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY; GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE : G.R. No. L-35556. September 17, 1974 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF VERONICA L. YUYITUNG AND TAN CHIN HIAN, v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; LIEUT. GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND BRIG. GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY : G.R. No. L-35567. September 17, 1974 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF AMANDO DORONILA, JUAN L. MERCADO, HERNANDO L. ABAYA, ERNESTO GRANADA, LUIS D. BELTRAN, TAN CHIN HIAN, BREN GUIAO, RUBEN CUSIPAG, ROBERTO ORDOŅEZ, MANUEL ALMARIO AND WILLIE BAUN, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; LIEUT. GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND BRIG. GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY : G.R. No. L-35571. September 17, 1974 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF BREN Z. GUIAO, TERESITA M. GUIAO, Petitioner, v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; LT. GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND BRIG. GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY : G.R. No. L-35573. September 17, 1974 - ERNESTO RONDON, Petitioner, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY; AND MAJOR RODULFO MIANA

  • Teehankee, J., Concurring and Dissenting : Separate Opinion : G.R. Nos. L-35546, L-35538, L-35539, L-35540, L-35547, L-35556, L-35567, L-35571 and L-35573 September 17, 1974 G.R. No. L-35546. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF BENIGNO S. AQUINO, JR., RAMON MITRA, JR., FRANCISCO RODRIGO, AND NAPOLEON RAMA, Petitioners, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, Repondents : G.R. No. L-35538. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF JOAQUIN P. ROCES, TEODORO M. LOCSIN, SR., ROLANDO FADUL, ROSALIND GALANG, GO ENG GUAN, MAXIMO V. SOLIVEN, RENATO CONSTANTINO, AND LUIS R. MAURICIO, Petitioners, v. THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; THE CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, Et Al. : G.R. No. L-35539. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF JOSE W. DIOKNO, CARMEN I. DIOKNO, v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; ROMEO ESPINO, THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES : G.R. No. L-35540. September 17, 1974. _ MAXIMO V. SOLIVEN, NAPOLEON G. RAMA, AND JOSE MARI VELEZ, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; HON. FRANCISCO TATAD, PRESS SECRETARY; AND GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY : G.R. No. L-35547. September 17, 1974. - ENRIQUE VOLTAIRE GARCIA II, v. BRIG GEN. FIDEL RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY; GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE : G.R. No. L-35556. September 17, 1974 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF VERONICA L. YUYITUNG AND TAN CHIN HIAN, v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; LIEUT. GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND BRIG. GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY : G.R. No. L-35567. September 17, 1974 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF AMANDO DORONILA, JUAN L. MERCADO, HERNANDO L. ABAYA, ERNESTO GRANADA, LUIS D. BELTRAN, TAN CHIN HIAN, BREN GUIAO, RUBEN CUSIPAG, ROBERTO ORDOŅEZ, MANUEL ALMARIO AND WILLIE BAUN, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; LIEUT. GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND BRIG. GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY : G.R. No. L-35571. September 17, 1974 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF BREN Z. GUIAO, TERESITA M. GUIAO, Petitioner, v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; LT. GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND BRIG. GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY : G.R. No. L-35573. September 17, 1974 - ERNESTO RONDON, Petitioner, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY; AND MAJOR RODULFO MIANA